Filed: Jan. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER REN E MARIE BUMB , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon an appeal by Plaintiff Kurt Zitzler from a partial denial of social security disability benefits. Relevant to the instant appeal, the ALJ rendered a decision favorable to Plaintiff for the period on and after Plaintiff attained age 55. An unfavorable decision was rendered as to the period before Plaintiff attained 55. 1 With regard to the unfavorable portion of the decision, Plaintiff co
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER REN E MARIE BUMB , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon an appeal by Plaintiff Kurt Zitzler from a partial denial of social security disability benefits. Relevant to the instant appeal, the ALJ rendered a decision favorable to Plaintiff for the period on and after Plaintiff attained age 55. An unfavorable decision was rendered as to the period before Plaintiff attained 55. 1 With regard to the unfavorable portion of the decision, Plaintiff con..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon an appeal by Plaintiff Kurt Zitzler from a partial denial of social security disability benefits. Relevant to the instant appeal, the ALJ rendered a decision favorable to Plaintiff for the period on and after Plaintiff attained age 55. An unfavorable decision was rendered as to the period before Plaintiff attained 55.1
With regard to the unfavorable portion of the decision, Plaintiff contends on appeal that the ALJ erred as a matter of law by not including in the decision a discussion of whether Plaintiff's case presented a "borderline age situation" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563.2
Defendant responds that "[t]his is not a borderline age case[,]" because Plaintiff was "approximately 5 months and 7 days too young to meet the age category's criteria on his date last insured." (Opposition Brief, p. 1)
Defendant ultimately may be correct that this is not a borderline age case. Compare Kane v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 1130, 1133 (3d Cir. 1985) (stating that a borderline case is one where the claimant is "a few days or months before the attainment of a certain age") with Roberts v. Barnhart, 139 F. App'x 418, 420 (3d Cir. 2005) ("there [is no] authority extending the benefits of a `borderline' age determination to persons . . . who are within five (5) to six (6) months of their fiftieth birthday.").3 However, the ALJ must make the determination in the first instance; failure to do so is reversible error. Lucas, 184 F. App'x at 207 (remanding to the SSA to "determine whether the 106day period . . . is `within a few days to a few months of reaching an older age category under' § 404.1563(b)"); Kane, 776 F.2d at 1134 (remanding to SSA to decide whether, "given claimant's age and circumstances" on the relevant date, the claimant was placed in the correct age category).4 The ALJ's decision evidences no consideration of the borderline age issue. Thus, upon remand, consistent with HALLEX § I-2-2-42(C)(5), the ALJ should "explain in the decision that he or she considered the borderline age situation, state whether he or she applied the higher age category or the chronological age, and note the specific factor(s) he or she considered."5
Accordingly, the Court vacates the decision of the ALJ and remands for proceedings consistent with the above analysis. ACCORDINGLY, it is on this 8th day of January, 2019,
ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case.
